Activists: Label genetically altered food

Updated 11:31 pm, Friday, March 15, 2013

HARTFORD -- Mothers, activists and others on Friday said they want to know if their cereal and other processed foods contain genetically modified ingredients.

"I'm the mother of two young children and I want to know exactly what I am feeding them. I would like to ensure that they consume almost no genetically modified food," said Nicole Sullivan, of Manchester.

"I believe we have a right to know what's in our food," said Sharon Schendel, a Fairfield resident.

More Information

.

Since the mid-1990s, common processed foods, such as soda, soups, crackers, cookies, condiments and other products, have contained ingredients in which DNA was manipulated through splicing techniques.

Those ingredients are often fruits and vegetables, corn, soybeans, vegetable oil, starch, syrups and cheese.

The reason for genetic modification is to produce desired characteristics, such as better taste, longer shelf life, higher yields, sturdier crops and the need to use fewer pesticides and other chemicals.

The federal Food and Drug Administration has said labeling products is not necessary because genetic modification does not materially change the food. The FDA does require manufacturers to report modifications to the agency before they are implemented.

But while regulators and many scientists say the process causes no danger, some consumers are asking questions about what they are eating, and a movement to label food has sprung up, partly over health concerns.

Farmers and manufacturers resist labels because they fear consumers will reject a product once they know ingredients were genetically modified without understanding the environmental and economic benefits.

"The proposed labeling requirements are neither necessary nor scientifically defensible. The bill would create competitive disincentives in Connecticut and increase the cost of doing business to the ultimate detriment of Connecticut seed companies, dealers, customers and consumers," Miller said.

"Of course they won't do this because they would consider it a deterrent to sales. Given an informed choice, the majority of consumers reject (genetically modified) foods," Pedros said.

Those testifying before the public health committee generally said they only want to know what's in their food, although some questioned whether genetically modified products are healthy.

"The bill is about our right to know," said Meagan Erhart, of Lyme. "There are no long-term studies indicating genetically modified foods are safe for humans, so we should be able to choose not to eat them."

"For the sake of the health of you, me, our children and grandchildren, I appeal to you to make this tiny step forward," said Kelly Hanna, a Shelton wellness coach.

"The people are asking this Legislature to be cautious," said State Rep. Kim Fawcett, D-Fairfield. "Genetically engineered food is potentially damaging to public health. This allows the public to decide if they want the food to go in their bodies."

"Please stand up for consumers. We are not saying (genetically modified) products are good or bad, we are saying we want to know what is in the food we eat," Parmelee said.

"Everything from Aspartame to zinc is now on the food label. I refuse to eat and buy anything I can't identify," added John Calandrelli, of Enfield.

Last year, Connecticut lawmakers "understood that mandatory labeling requirements achieve no health or scientific benefit and they wisely rejected the measure," said Paul Pescatello, president and CEO of Connecticut United for Research Excellence. "We believe the costly mandate ... should also be rejected."

"There are no safety or health benefits to labeling bio-engineered food," said Stan Sorkin, president of the Connecticut Food Association.

Sorkin said last summer the American Medical Association said there is no justification for special labeling of bio-engineered foods. And the FDA maintains there is no difference in safety between bio-engineered foods and those produced by conventional means, he said.

"This will hurt Connecticut household budgets," Sorkin said.

A study produced during a recent California debate on similar legislation estimated that family food bills would haved increased between $300 and $400 had the measure been approved, food industry representatives said in a statement.